As always, it goes deeper than that.

I'm more of a follower of Gifford Pinchot than John Muir, I believe natural resources are meant to be used, but not raped.

I have no problem in harvesting trees in a manner that they can renew themselves. Neither do I have any problem with abused former wilderness being farmed for timber or other resources, providing the new ecosytem is also sustainable and as close to its original state as possible.

If a harvester manages the land in such a way that it remains productive indefinitely, and some fraction is preserved in its original wilderness state, as a genetic heritage and natural preserve. Then I have no problem with that.

But when it comes to wiping out irreplaceable, long-lived or rare species and devastating entire ecosystems just because that wood is in high demand for luxury furniture or because the land is provided cheap by the Forest Service, then I must respectfully withdraw my support.